Comments by "" (@fuuf102) on "Turki Alalshikh" channel.

  1. Jesus Christ not God. It is clear from the verses below that he was indeed 100% man. John 17.3...jesus says to the father...that they may know you, THE ONLY TRUE GOD and Jesus whom you sent. John 20.17 Jesus says....I am ascending to my father and your father, my God and your God. Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, listen to this: Jesus of Nazareth was a man accredited by God to you by miracles, wonders and signs, which God did among you through him, as you yourselves know. 1 Timothy 2:5 For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus. Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man… Numbers 23:19 (NRSV) God is not a human being, that he should lie, or a mortal… Hosea 11:9 For I am God, and not man— the Holy One among you..
    1
  2. Xtians claim that Jesus dng for our sins was prophesied in O.t. even though Jesus never ever made such a claim The prophesy 🤦 1- Isaiah 53:3 says that "He" is despised by all men. In Luke 10:1, Jesus has at least 70 followers, and in other verses we're told that he fed and healed thousands (John 6:9-11, Luke 17:11-19 and other verses). 2- In Isaiah 53:5 it says he was wounded for our transgressions. Now right away one might assume this is the deff of Jesus. However it says he was WOUNDED not kiwd. But let us go with kiwd for your arguments sake. This is not what this verse is saying. It is saying that they made a mistake so he is paying for it. They plotted or accused against him. This is exactly what happened. And again, the verse says wounded, which further proves that Christ was never kiwd. 3- Isaiah 53:7 states that "he did not open his mouth". There are two possible interpretations and answers to this: Jesus never literally spoke a single word during the crucifixion trial. This is obviously wrong because Jesus spoke during his trial with both Pontius Pilot and the Jews. And we all know Jesus' famous and final cry to GOD Almighty when he said: "Eloi Eloi lama sabachtani!", which translates: "My GOD my GOD, why have you forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46) So wrong. He did open his mouth. Jesus did not object to GOD Almighty's Will. This is also wrong, because again, Jesus cried during the crucifixion "My GOD my GOD why have you forsaken me?", and he also prayed ENDLESSLY to GOD Almighty on the night of the crucifixion to not get crucified! (Matthew 16:39, Matthew 26:36-44, Luke 6:12) He even bowed down his face to Allah Almighty in worship endless times begging Him for a change in Decision. So yes, Jesus did object. 4- Isaiah 53:9 says that he made his grave with the wicked and the rich. "in his deff" is also a false translation to the Hebrew Mawth. At the worst, it should be translated as "in deff", making the word a symbolic one as further confirmed in the Hebrew lexicon: There are also two errors in the fulfillment of this Prophecy: Jesus was never buried (Matthew 27:59-66, Matthew 28)! He was temporarily placed in a tomb and then his body disappeared after that. But he never ONCE was buried under ground as our dead get buried. Jesus, who was never buried from the first place, was also NEVER BURIED with the wicked and the rich. His tomb was placed in an isolated area as recorded in the gospels. Again, verse 9 says that he was to be buried with both the wicked and the rich. Jesus was alone. 5- In Isaiah 53:10-11, GOD Almighty will prolong Jesus' life and Jesus will live to even see his offspring (his children)! And Christ will see the Light and be satisfied after the suffering of his soul. The suffering of his soul here is referring to the overwhelming fear that Jesus had and the countless cries and Prayers that he made to Allah Almighty to save him. Psalm 91 further speaks clearly on this. Also, Jesus' life was never made long or extended. He only lived for 33 years, so we're told in the gospels, and he certainly never married any woman nor had any child from any woman. Yet, Isaiah 53:10 clearly says that he will live and he will have and see his children. 6- In Isaiah 53:12, we are told that Jesus' life or soul will be poured unto deff. To me, given the Islamic position about Christ never got crucified, and given the symbolic speech in Isaiah 53 chapter that most of it conflicts with what really took place with Christ in the gospels, and given the fact that many early writings in Palestine and elsewhere stated clearly that Jesus never got crucified such as in the Apocalypse of Peter and other ancient texts, then my interpretation of this verse about Jesus' life being poured unto defff means to me that Jesus' life will overpower def! This is indisputably proven in Psalm 91 where it states that not only Jesus will not get crucified, but GOD Almighty will also hear his cries and will send down the Angels to PROTECT HIM and SAVE HIM. And Psalm 91 also says that Christ will call upon GOD Almighty and GOD Almighty will HEAR him and HONOR him. Christ😢,
    1
  3. Look at what the bible says regarding salvation. Even the wickedest of the wicked can save themselves by repentance. Not just forgiven, God says He will forget the sin. And he says the son will not bare the inequities of the father ( original sin) and vice versa because God is just. Please explain why salvation was possible thru repentance, but after Paul's work, there is no salvation except by blood? He will not dye for his father’s sin; he will surely live. 18But his father will dye for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people. 19“Yet you ask, ‘Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?’ Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. 20The one who sins is the one who will dye. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them. 21“But if a wicked person turns away from all the sins they have committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, that person will surely live; they will not dye. 22None of the offenses they have committed will be remembered against them. Because of the righteous things they have done, they will live. 23Do I take any pleasure in the deff of the wicked? declares the Sovereign Lord. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live? 24“But if a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked person does, will they live? None of the righteous things that person has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness they are guilty of and because of the sins they have committed, they will dye. 25“Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear, you Israelites: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust? 26If a righteous person turns from their righteousness and commits sin, they will dye for it; because of the sin they have committed they will dye. 27But if a wicked person turns away from the wickedness they have committed and does what is just and right, they will save their life,,,.,.
    1
  4. Islam didn't invent the fact Jesus wasn't crucified. In his Trallians, Ignatius, the bishop ofAntioch (who died around 110 CE, and who wrote during the first decade of the second century CE), was quite eloquent in his attack against the early Christians who denied that the crucifixion of Jesus was anything more than an illusion. The following quotation from Ignatius (italics added for emphasis by the present author) is directly to the point: But if, as some say.. .his suffering was only an appearance, then why am I a prisoner, and why do I long to fight with the wild beasts? In that case, I am dying in vain." 80 The Cross & The Crescent One cannot attack as heresy a belief or doctrine that does not yet exist. The theology of Ignatius not withstanding, his attack against those early Christians who believed that Jesus' crucifixion was only illusory, demonstrates the existence of that belief among the early Christians. Further, the fact that Ignatius even bothered to attack this doctrine suggests that the belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was quite widespread by 110 CEo Clearly, the doctrine of or belief in the illusory nature of the crucifixion was perceived by Ignatius to be a threat to what would much later become the orthodox position of the Christian church regarding the crucifixion. As it would take some years for such a belief to become widespread across the vastness of the Roman Empire, it can be deduced that the origin of the doctrine of the illusory nature of the crucifixion must be dated well back into the first century CE, and quite possibly right back to the time of the crucifixion itself. When considering the above, it must be remembered that Ignatius was attacking Christians, not non-Christians, although the particular Christians being attacked shared a specific belief system at odds with that of Ignatius when it came to the particulars of the doctrine of the crucifixion. To millions of Christians raised with a Sunday School interpretation of Christianity, the above may come as something of a shock. However, for those Christians, the shocks are only just the beginning. Indeed, the shocks dramatically increase in voltage when one considers the early Christian scriptures, both apocryphal and canonical. ,,
    1
  5. Psalm 91 is about Jesus, he is mentioned by name in the original language, so we cant deny its about Jesus. This prophecy that Jesus would be protected, and be lifted with no crucifixion matches what the Qur'an says about Jesus PBUH GOD Almighty will hear his cries (Psalm 91:15) and will save him (Psalm 91:3). GOD Almighty will cover him with His Protection (Psalm 91:4). Christ will then not have any fear in him (Psalm 91:5). Christ will then observe with his own eyes the punishment of the crucified ones (Psalm 91:8). No harm (this includes crucifixion!) or disaster will even come near Christ (Psalm 91:10....this even contradicts him getting beaten up before crucifixion). GOD Almighty will send down the Angels to protect him and lift him (Psalm 91:11-12, 14, Isaiah 52:13). Not even his foot will strike the ground from his enemies pushing, grappling and punishment. Christ's call will be HEARD, and he will be delivered and honored (Psalm 91:15, Isaiah 52:13). No way would these verses be valid if Christ got crucified. His life will be prolonged (extended) and he will live to even see his offspring (Isaiah 53:10 and Psalm 91:16, which by the way contradict Jesus never got married and had children. In Islam's Noble Quran's 13:38, however, it is quite possible that Jesus Christ had wives and children). His life will overpower death (Isaiah 53:12). "Death" in Isaiah 53:9 is proven to be symbolic using the Hebrew Lexicon and several English translations, and it never meant a literal death. Psalm 91 is speaking as a number of Prophecies that WILL take place. Notice how the verses are speak of future events that WILL TAKE PLACE. Never once throughout the entire New Testament were the Angels sent to save Jesus from striking his foot against a rock. This, again, clearly proves that the NT is indeed false and corrupt..,.,
    1
  6.  @GMP007  For me, the biggest evidence is that Paul followers ALWAYS QUOTE PAUL, OR THE LAST GOSPEL JOHN, as their evidences And their own scholars say John is the LEAST AUTHENTIC, written by multiple authors, hundreds of miles and years away from Jesus. And this is the book that elevates Jesus, at least tries. They never ever quote Mark or luke, the earlier Gospels, where Jesus is a prophet and messiah, sent only for the lost sheep of Israel, by his own admission. This is the biggest red flag that Paul followers are misguided. ALL THEIR favourite quotes come from the froindulent Gospel of John. Even Mark isn't safe. 16.8 is where Mark ends,as the earliest manuscripts end there.. But the 'long ending' of Mark, 16.9 to 20, has the resurrection, Jesus sitting on right side of God etc Their own academia acknowledge this, that 9 to 20 are later interpolation and its common knowledge except for the blind followers who have not studied what they are basing their salvation on 🤦
    1
  7. Let’s take the Gospel of John, the fourth Gospel. Is there good evidence to believe that what we read in John’s Gospel is a true account of what Jesus actually said and did? Up until a few hundred years ago, no-one really questioned whether John’s Gospel was historical. But with growing scepticism over the reality of God and the supernatural (a philosophical and cultural movement known as the Enlightenment), scholars began to suggest other explanations for the origins of the Gospel. Against the traditional view of the Gospel having been written by a disciple of Jesus and eyewitness to his life, death and resurrection, they argued that the Gospel was, in reality, written by someone living hundreds of years later, and hundreds of miles away. And the concepts in John, they said, were too Greek, and not Jewish enough (as the other three Gospels, Matthew, Mark and Luke, were). John’s idea that Jesus was ‘God in the flesh’, for example, was said to reflect much later developments in Christian theology. So for these reasons, by around 1900, most New Testament scholars believed that John’s Gospel could not be considered as reliable history.
    1
  8. I and my father are one. John 10.30....that they may all be one, just as you, father are in me, and I in you, that they may also be in us....The glory that you have given me, I have given to them, that they may be one, even as we are one. John 17:20 So are the disciples also God? Because they are one with Jesus and God just as Jesus and God are one? Obviously not. So John 10.30 is not a literal one, but a metaphorical one. When cherry picking goes wrong. Thats why you should read the bible, and not believe whatever church or people have taught you. Whoever has seen me has seen the father. John 14.9. You take it literally and use this as evidence Jesus is God. So that would literally mean Jesus is the Father! In the Christian Creed, is Jesus ever the father? NO. They are 2 separate entities. Jesus is not the father, and the father is not Jesus. So again, you cherry pick a metaphorical statement and claim its literal, but if you think it through you would realise the blunder. If it wasn't cherry picked and it was understood with context, and other verses in the Bible were read, you would see many verses along these lines, that are not literal but metaphorical. Besides, the Bible says no man can see God and live. Every prophet that came was the only way to God during their respective prophet hood. When Abraham had his time, the way to God was only through his teaching, when Moses was here, it was through him, likewise Jesus, likewise Muhammad. He is the last prophet bringing the final revelation from God, and our only way to God is now through his teachings. Before Abraham was, I am. First of all, its a mistranslation. But before we get to that, how is this saying he is God? Being before Abraham makes him God? If you had read and understood the context, you would have realised it was talking about God's foreknowledge. It is saying that the mission of Jesus was predestined before Abraham was on earth. Likewise Muhammad says that he was a prophet when Adam was between water and clay. We don't take that as evidence Muhammad was God! He was a man and prophet of God. The statement 'I am' is in many places in the Bible, the exact words as the above, but its translated as 'I am he', Paul says it, blind man says it, but only in John 8:48 its translated as "I am" copying the translation of the "I am" that was used from OT about the Almighty God. Instead of depending on mistranslation, ambiguous statements, interpolation and fraud, look at the clear cut unambiguous statements from Jesus, like John 17.3, where Jesus says the ONLY TRUE GOD IS THE FATHER, or John 20:17 where he tells us we have the same father as him, the same God as him. Please reflect and study the bible properly. Better yet, read a red letter bible, where the statements of Jesus are in red. See what Jesus says, and not what others have said, and if you are sincere, it will rock your world. Sincerely as the God of Jesus to guide you 🙏
    1
  9. That Isaiah 9:6 has been misinterpreted can be seen from the fact that Jesus is never called the “Eternal Father” anywhere else in Bible.  Since the Trinitarian doctrine teaches that Christians should “neither confound the Persons nor divide the Substance” (Athanasian Creed), how can the Trinitarians accept that Jesus is the “Eternal Father”? Let us consider additional facts impartially. First, all the Hebrew verb forms in Isaiah 9:6 are in the past tense.  For example, the word which the Christian Bibles render as “his name will be called” is the two words ‘vayikra shemo,’ which properly translated, should read “his name was called.”  The word “vayikra” is the first word to appear in the book of Leviticus (1:1), and it is translated properly over there – in the past tense.  In addition, the King James Version translates the same verbs elsewhere in the past tense in Genesis 4:26 and Isaiah 5:25.  Only in Isaiah 9:6-7 are these verbs translated in the future tense! Notice that it says “a child HAS been born to us.”  This is an event that has just occurred, not a future event.  Isaiah is not making a prophecy, but recounting history.  A future event would say a child will be born to us, but this is NOT what the verse says.  The Christian translations capitalize the word ‘son’ assuming that this is a messianic prophecy and the names of a divine son. Second, the two letter word “is”, is usually not stated in Hebrew.  Rather, “is” is understood.  For example, the words “hakelev” (the dog) and “gadol” (big), when joined into a sentence - hakelev gadol - means “the dog IS big,” even though no Hebrew word in that sentence represents the word “is.”  A more accurate translation of the name of that child, then, would be “A wonderful counselor is the mighty God, the everlasting father ...”.  This name describes God, not the person who carries the name.  The name Isaiah itself means “God is salvation,” but no one believes the prophet himself is God in a human body! Third, the phrase “Mighty God” is a poor translation according to some biblical scholars.  Although English makes a clear distinction between “God” and “god,” the Hebrew language, which has only capital letters, cannot.  The Hebrew word “God” had a much wider range of application than it does in English.  Some suggest a better translation for the English reader would be “mighty hero,” or “divine hero.”  Both Martin Luther and James Moffatt translated the phrase as “divine hero” in their Bibles. Fourth, according to the New Testament, Jesus was never called any of these names in his lifetime. Fifth, if Isaiah 9:6 is taken to refer to Jesus, then Jesus is the Father!  And this is against the Trinitarian doctrine. Sixth, the fact that the New Testament does not quote this passage shows that even the New Testament authors didn’t take this verse to be in reference to Jesus. Seventh, the passage is talking about the wonders performed by the Lord for Hezekiah, king of Judah.  Preceding verses in Isaiah 9 talk of a great military triumph by Israel over its enemies.  At the time Isaiah is said to have written this passage, God had just delivered King Hezekiah and Jerusalem from a siege laid by the Assyrians under General Sennacherib.  The deliverance is said to have been accomplished in spectacular fashion: an angel went into the Assyrian camp and cild 185,000 soldiers while they slept.  When Sennacherib awoke to find his army decimated, he and the remaining soldiers fled, where he was cild by his own sons (Isaiah 37:36-38).  Chapters 36 and 37 of Isaiah recount how Hezekiah stood firm in the face of Sennacherib’s vast army and his blasphemous words against the God.  When all seemed lost, Hezekiah continued to trust in the Lord, and for this he was rewarded with a miraculous victory.  It is interesting to note that the statement, “the zeal of the Lord of hosts will accomplish this,” found at the end of Isaiah 9:7, is found in only two other places in the Bible: Isaiah 37:32 and 2 Kings 19:31.  Both these passages discuss the miraculous deliverance of Hezekiah by God.  Therefore, in light of the above, Isaiah is recounting God’s defense of Jerusalem during the Assyrian siege.  Furthermore, Soncino’s commentary says the chapter is about the fall of Assyria and the announcement of the birth of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz.
    1
  10. Before Abraham was, I am . Christians argue that this verse states that Jesus said he was the “I am” (i.e., the Yahweh of the Old Testament), so he must be God. That argument is not correct. Saying “I am” does not make a person God. The man born blind that Jesus healed was not claiming to be God, and he said “I am the man,” and the Greek reads exactly like Jesus’ statement, i.e., “I am.” The fact that the exact same phrase is translated two different ways, one as “I am” and the other as “I am the man,” is one reason it is so hard for the average Christian to get the truth from just reading the Bible as it has been translated into English. Most Bible translators are Trinitarian, and their bias appears in various places in their translation, this being a common one. Paul also used the same phrase of himself when he said that he wished all men were as “I am.” (Acts 26:29). Thus, we conclude that saying “I am” did not make Paul, the man born blind or Christ into God. C. K. Barrett writes: Ego eimi [“I am”] does not identify Jesus with God, but it does draw attention to him in the strongest possible terms. “I am the one—the one you must look at, and listen to, if you would know God.”  The phrase “I am” occurs many other times in the New Testament, and is often translated as “I am he”  or some equivalent (“I am he”—Mark 13:6; Luke 21:8; John 13:19; 18:5, 6 and 8. “It is I”—Matt. 14:27; Mark 6:50; John 6:20. “I am the one I claim to be” —John 8:24 and 28.). It is obvious that these translations are quite correct, and it is interesting that the phrase is translated as “I am” only in John 8:58. If the phrase in John 8:58 were translated “I am he” or “I am the one,” like all the others, it would be easier to see that Christ [‘Eesa alayhissalaam] was speaking of himself as the Messiah (Maseeh) of God (as indeed he was), spoken of throughout the Old Testament. The argument is made that because Jesus was “before” Abraham, Jesus must have been God. There is no question that Jesus figuratively “existed” in Abraham’s time. However, he did not actually physically exist as a person; rather he “existed” in the plan of God.  A careful reading of the context of the verse shows that Jesus was speaking of “existing” in God’s foreknowledge. Here is another example where a Prophet existed in the knowledge even before he was born, yet he was not at all Divine, Jeremiah 1:5 – Before I formed you in the womb, I knew you, before you were born I set you apart, I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.” Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) said: “I was a Prophet when Adam was between water and clay” Yet, no Muslim claims that the Prophet was divine, the meaning has it in it that even when Nabi Adam or Abraham (alayhimussalaam) were present, Jesus (‘Eesa alayhissalaam) and Prophet Muhammad (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam) were Decreed to be the Messiah and the Last Prophet in Allah’s plan respectively. Attaching ‘Divinity’ to such statements shall be absurd and meaningless. Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version. The authorship of the Gospel of John, the Fourth Gospel, is widely contested. Scholars have debated the authorship of Johannine literature since at least the third century, but especially since the Enlightenment.
    1
  11. Jesus was accused of blasphemy, and he replied that you are called GODS in scripture, I am only saying son of God So Jesus denies the accusation against him. He denies he is claiming divinity. For example, I could be accused of murdering someone, and I reply, you people killed people, I just threw a punch. I'm really not sure why Christians use this accusation of the Jews as evidence Jesus was God. This verse further supports the fact Jesus was not God. As he denies the accusation and says his claim is not comparable to the accusation.
    1
  12. How many sons does the Bible tell us that God Almighty has? Jacob is God's son and firstborn: "Israel is my son, even my firstborn" Exodus 4:22. Solomon is God's son "He shall build an house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom for ever. I will be his father, and he shall be my son": 2 Samuel 7:13-14. Ephraim is God's firstborn: "for I am a father to Israel, and Ephraim is my firstborn" Jeremiah 31:9 (who is God's firstborn? Israel or Ephraim?). Adam is the son of God "Adam, which was the son of God" Luke 3:38. Common people (you and me) are the sons of God: "Ye are the children of the LORD your God" Deuteronomy 14:1. "For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God" Romans 8:14. "But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, [even] to them that believe on his name" John 1:12. "That ye may be blameless and harmless, the sons of God, without rebuke, in the midst of a crooked and perverse nation, among whom ye shine as lights in the world;" Philippians 2:15. "Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: ... now are we the sons of God" 1 John 3:1-2. "When the morning stars sang together, and all the sons of God shouted for joy?" Job 38:7. "Again there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 2:1. "Now there was a day when the sons of God came to present themselves before the LORD," Job 1:6. "when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men," Genesis 6:4. "That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair" Genesis 6:2 As we can see, the use of the term "son of God" when describing normal human beings was not at all an uncommon practice among Jesus' people. Well then, was Jesus the only begotten son of God ? Read Psalms 2:7 : "I will declare the decree: the LORD hath said unto me (King David, King), Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee"
    1
  13. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,
    1
  14. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,
    1
  15. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,
    1
  16. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,
    1
  17. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  18. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version..
    1
  19. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”
    1
  20. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  21. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version..
    1
  22. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.
    1
  23. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered
    1
  24. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11.
    1
  25. tthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family
    1
  26. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  27. wake up! they had to add the trinity later Many Christians use this verse to prove the existence of the Trinity. For there are three that bear witness in heaven: the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit; and these three are one. (1 John 5:7) The issue with this verse is that it is universally recognized by Biblical scholars and historians, including thirty-two Christian scholars of the highest eminence backed by fifty cooperating Christian denominations, as being inserted by the Church later. Since it was proven that this verse is a fabrication, it has been deleted from some of the later Bibles, such as the Revised Standard Version and the New Revised Standard Version...,
    1
  28. The Catholic Encyclopedia, II, page 263: “The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, and Holy Spirit by the Catholic Church in the second century.” The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275: “It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but…a later liturgical addition.”,
    1
  29. tthew 21:11 And the crowds were saying, “This is the prophet Jesus, from Nazareth in Galilee.” Luke 7:16 Fear gripped them all, and they began glorifying God, saying, “A great prophet has arisen among us!” John 4:19 The woman *said to Him, “Sir, I perceive that You are a prophet. Matthew 21:46 When they sought to seize Him, they feared the people, because they considered Him to be a prophet. John 6:14 Therefore when the people saw the sign which He had performed, they said, “This is truly the Prophet who is to come into the world.” John 7:40 Some of the people therefore, when they heard these words, were saying, “This certainly is the Prophet.” John 9:17 So they *said to the blind man again, “What do you say about Him, since He opened your eyes?” And he said, “He is a prophet.” Luke 24:19 And He said to them, “What things?” And they said to Him, “The things about Jesus the Nazarene, who was a prophet mighty in deed and word in the sight of God and all the people, Mark 6:15 But others were saying, “He is Elijah.” And others were saying, “He is a prophet, like one of the prophets of old.” Mark 8:28 They told Him, saying, “John the Baptist; and others say Elijah; but others, one of the prophets.” Luke 9:8 and by some that Elijah had appeared, and by others that one of the prophets of old had risen again. OK, so Jesus doesnt refute anybody calling him a Prophet, he reaffirms it Luke 13:33 . . . . I must proceed on my way. For it wouldn’t do for a prophet of God to be kwil. Led except in Jerusalem. Mark 6:3-4 Then they scoffed . . . . They were deeply off. nded and refused to believe in him. Then Jesus told them, “A prophet is honored everywhere except in his own hometown and among his relatives and his own family
    1
  30. Bruce Metzger, the premier New Testament textual critic, writes: “Matthew and Luke suppress or weaken references in Mark to such human emotions of Jesus as grief and anger and amazement as well as Jesus’ unrequited love; they also omit Mark’s statement that Jesus’ friends thought he was beside himself”. He explains further, that: “The later gospels omit what might imply that Jesus was unable to accomplish what he willed…and also omit questions asked by Jesus which might be taken to imply his ignorance.”[3] Metzger continues further by enumerating instances where Matthew and Luke soften Mark’s statements which might minimize the majesty of Jesus and replaced it with illustrations of a more alluring and authoritative Jesus. In the story of the fig tree as found in Mark, the disciples did not notice the withering of the tree until next morning. For Matthew, this seemed less dramatic and unimpressive, and hence in his narrative the tree withered at once, leaving the disciples in shock and amazement. Matthew and Luke were adamant in changing the words of Jesus. They wanted to make Jesus say what they wanted people to believe, “reflecting a later stage of theological understanding than that in Mark.” (Metzger, pg 83) It seems quite clear that during both the pre and post gospel stages of the gospel traditions transmission, the available material was molded, filtered and changed in direct correlation to the Christological convictions of those who handled the traditions. It is important to stress that this is not a case of the evangelists’ mere differing in emphasis; rather there are numerous occasions when the later gospel writers go out of their way to modify and alter the earlier version. Therefore, if we wish to come close to the historical Jesus in the gospels, it is a good starting point to compare the stories in the various gospels, to discern where the story has altered.
    1
  31. What about “He who is without s77n, should k4st the f1r5t”? On the other hand, every other early manuscript omits it, notably including two of the earliest and most reliable manuscripts, called Papyrus 66 and Papyrus 75 that date from the second or early third century and were found in Egypt (closer to where John wrote). Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete copy of the New Testament (c. 325 CE), does not include it either. No pastor or theologian from the eastern side of the early church references it until the tenth century. In their commentaries and sermons, they go directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 (keep in mind that current chapter and verse breakdowns were added later). Finally, all the earliest translations of the Greek New Testament (Syriac, Coptic, Armenian, Old Latin, and Georgian) skip this story as well.
    1
  32. Ttthe doctrine of Alpha and Omega is a sad and unfortunate example of mankind’s tampering with the Word of God. It shows how doctrine is contracted by men to justify false beliefs. The phrase “Saying, I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last” (Revelation 1:11) which is found in the King James Version was not in the original Greek texts. Therefore, the Alpha Omega phrase is not found in virtually any ancient texts, nor is it mentioned, even as a footnote, in any modern translation., This phrase does NOT occur in NA28, UBS5, W&H, Souter, Majority Text, THGNT, SBL, R&P Byzantine Text, Orthodox Text, Jerome's Latin Vulgate, & the Clementine Text. The phrase only occurs in the Textus Receptus. This phrase is not even footnoted in UBS5 and UBS4. The only MSS listed as having this phrase in NA28 is the manuscript of the commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. However, "I [am] the first and the last" occurs in P025. Therefore, there appears to be very little dispute that "I am Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" is not part of the original text of Revelation at Rev 1:11.
    1
  33. Why were the commentators s0000 81473d?
    1
  34. the commntry was diabolical, let alone the replays. i lost count how many times bivol missed with flashy combos and the cmntatrs said "absolutely amazing work by bivol" etc etc its no surprise why so many ppl thought bv0l ejjed it. they wer misl3d by the presentation. it was very close, but havin rewatched it, its clear why the better fighter got the decision.
    1
  35. and then compubox numbers confirmed it, as beterbiev landed more round for round, in 6 rounds to bv0ls 5, with one even. bvol survived in the end, and would have been stopped if there wer more rounds
    1
  36. Why were the commentators s0000 81473d?
    1